§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat about the Amendments to Clause 5?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI understood that in view of the fact that the Minister wished to withdraw Clause 5 the Amendments to that Clause on the Order Paper would not be taken. I appealed to the Committee and I thought I had assent to that course.
§ Mr. SHAKESPEAREAs one of those who is affected by this Clause I should like to say a few words why, in my opinion, it should not be withdrawn, and why it is not necessary to withdraw it. The Committee has agreed that Clause 4 should be deleted, but in whatever form Clause 4 ultimately emerges Clause 5, in identically the same words, will be 94 necessary because it only relates to the statutory conditions in Section 7 of the principal Act. Therefore, if the Minister brings in a new Clause 4, modifying the statutory conditions of the principal Act, Clause 5 will have to be debated. I do not see why it should not be possible to retain Clause 5. I have an Amendment down to reduce the waiting period to three days. I do not propose to discuss that question now, but I should like to enter my protest against the withdrawal of the Clause.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.